Local Government

Summary

Mr C told us he had been complaining to the council for a number of years about the lack of street cleaning at his business address. He told us that the council have insisted that the street is cleaned regularly. However, he has seen the same rubbish lying there for weeks. In the council's final response to Mr C's complaint, they advised that the litter on his street was due to uncontained refuse from adjacent sites. They told him that the street is scheduled to be swept on Saturdays, and they will continue to monitor the area. Mr C said the situation did not improve and he tried to complain to the council again five months later. The council advised that he had already exhausted the complaints process.

Our investigation found that the council had failed to clean the street, as Mr C reported seeing the same rubbish lying there for several weeks. Where the rubbish had come from was irrelevant. It was also evident that the steps taken by the council following their investigation had been ineffective, as the problem persisted. We upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should monitor the area for a period of four weeks

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C, who owns a commercial property, complained about the way the council had handled his complaints of noise nuisance from a neighbouring commercial property.

Mr C complained that the council had not taken reasonable enforcement action against the other premises. We took independent advice from an environmental health adviser. We found that the council has a legal responsibility under the Environmental Health Act 1990 to investigate complaints of noise and to take action where they determine that a statutory noise nuisance exists. We found that the council had investigated the complaints of noise nuisance and had decided that there were no grounds to take statutory enforcement action. We were satisfied that the council had explained the reasons for their decision and the basis upon which they had exercised their judgement in this case. As such, based on the evidence available and taking into account the advice we received, we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the council had failed to provide a full and reasonable response to his complaint. We found that while the responses were outwith the timescales detailed in the complaints handling procedure, the council had met with Mr C and had provided a reasonable response to his representations. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained that the council had decided to withdraw the services of their noise pollution team until suitable insulation had been installed. We found that the council had decided, after investigation, that the noise problems were being caused by ineffective noise insulation between the two premises and that, until such time as sound insulation works were carried out, they would not respond to further noise complaints. This was a discretionary decision for the council to take and we found no evidence of fault in arriving at the decision. We were satisfied that the council had explained the reasons for their decision to Mr C. Based on the available evidence and taking into account the advice we received, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C is a council tenant and she reported a number of incidents of her neighbour's anti-social behaviour to the council. Ms C complained that the council failed to address her complaints about her neighbour's anti-social behaviour within a reasonable timescale. The council advised Ms C they can only investigate the anti-social behaviour if they have corroborating evidence. Our investigation found that the council did investigate Ms C's complaints correctly. When Ms C raised further reported further incidents of anti-social behaviour the council obtained witness statements from other neighbours which corroborated Ms C's complaints. The council met with the neighbour and issued her with a written first warning. The neighbour subsequently moved out of her property. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C agreed to have insulation works carried out to her property from funding provided by a Scottish Government scheme. Mrs C complained to the council about works that were still outstanding and the standard of work carried out to her property. Mrs C was particularly concerned that her windows would not open properly.

Our investigation found that the council did not have a direct technical role in ensuring the works carried out on this project were completed to a reasonable standard, as they had engaged the services of a managing agent for the project. We found that when issues were raised, the council took the appropriate steps, within their remit, by engaging with a managing agent to ensure that works were carried out to an appropriate standard. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to protect his family lair (burial plot) in line with their responsibilities by approving the internment of the ashes of his brother-in-law without his knowledge or approval, and that the council failed to respond to his subsequent complaint in accordance with their responsibilities.

We were satisfied that the council acted in line with the Regulations for the Management of Burial Grounds in East Lothian, and we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. However, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's response to his subsequent complaint, as we found that the council did not respond to Mr C's complaint within 20 working days and failed to keep him appropriately updated. The council told us they had since improved their complaints handling processes, and had carried out staff training, and they provided us with evidence of that.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to act in line with their responsibilities in overseeing a programme of works that was carried out in the area by a third party company. Mr C considered that the works carried out at his home had not been done to a reasonable standard and also complained that the council had not handled his complaint about this appropriately.

After investigating Mr C's concerns about the oversight of the programme of works, we did not uphold his complaint. We found that the council had used a managing agent to oversee the programme of works and there was evidence that a supervisory service was provided by them. While the council had no liability or responsibility for the works, we found that when issues arose at Mr C's property, they took an active co-ordination role to work towards resolving these. However, we found that in responding to Mr C's official complaint, the council failed to respond within the 20 working days specified in their complaints handling procedure. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to the council.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the failings in complaints handling. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints should be handled in line with the complaints handling procedure. Any revised timescale should be agreed with the complainant or approved by senior staff in line with the policy and the reasons for this should be explained to the complainant.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had carried out works to improve access to a site they owned at the same time as considering planning applications for the site. He was concerned that the works to facilitate access suggested that consent would be granted and, as such, prejudiced the planning applications. He was also unhappy with the consistency of the explanations he had received from the council about the access improvements.

We noted that the council had planned these works for some time prior to the submission of any planning applications, but the works had been delayed and were only initiated around the time of the submission of the applications. We noted that the council were carrying out the access improvements to improve the marketability of the site. We found no evidence to indicate that carrying out the access improvements was in any way unreasonable or inappropriate, nor did we find any evidence that it had prejudiced the planning applications. Indeed, during the course of our investigations, one of the applications was refused consent by the council. For this reason, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

However, the council failed to provide us with any evidence to refute Mr C's claims that the information provided by the council during the course of his discussions with council officers and elected members was inconsistent and inaccurate. As we did not have any evidence to show that the council were consistent in their advice and information, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to provide him with consistent information and explanations for the work carried out. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's decision to grant planning permission for an equestrian centre close to his home. In particular, he said that objections to the development were not properly considered and that it should have been treated as a 'bad neighbour' development (a development that could have a negative impact on neighbouring properties). Mr C also said that the siting of the proposed development was not in accordance with Local Development Plan (LDP) policies. However, the council maintained that none of this was the case and that the application had been considered reasonably and appropriately.

We obtained independent planning advice and this showed that while all the objections made to the plans had not been reproduced in full in a committee report for the attention of councillors who were making the decision, it was not reasonable to do this. However, the report made it clear that the summaries produced should be read in conjunction with the full text which was available via a weblink. We further found that it was a matter of judgement for the planning authority whether or not a development constituted a 'bad neighbour' development having regard to the wider public interest. While the council took the view that it was not a 'bad neighbour' development, and did not advertise it as such, they had, nevertheless, advertised the proposals. Even if the council had considered the development to be a 'bad neighbour' development, the advert placed would have satisfied Scottish Government regulations. Finally, we found that the report associated with the application assessed the proposals against the LDP policies and while the application did not comply with all aspects of the LDP, the council had considered other relevant policies and material considerations which justified approval. The report had explained the reasons why such a conclusion was reached. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy and support agency, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms A had complained to the council about anti-social behaviour from a neighbour, in particular noise and dog fouling in the garden, but felt that they had failed to properly investigate her concerns. The council advised that they had responded appropriately to all of Ms A's complaints of anti-social behaviour, including carrying out regular visits to the property.

During the course of our investigation we found that there had been a number of occasions where Ms A had not allowed the council officers access to her property so that they could witness the noise from her neighbour. We also found that the council had contacted the neighbour and spoke to them about the complaints. The council also visited the area a number of times to look for dog fouling, and found no evidence. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had unreasonably failed to vary the high hedge notice that had been served in relation to his neighbour's garden. He claimed that the maximum height for the hedges in terms of the notice had been calculated with reference to there being a difference in height of one metre between his neighbour's garden and his. He claimed that the base measurements had been wrong and the hedges were higher than they ought to be, but the council insisted they were within the requirements of the notice.

The council's position was that they did not have the authority to vary the notice, since it had been superseded by an appeal to the planning and environmental appeals division of the Scottish Government. Nevertheless, they had gone to considerable lengths to try to resolve the dispute with Mr C. We found the council's position to be reasonable and we therefore did not uphold the complaint.